Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Its house-election time. For my house, the system is as follows: 4 guys and 4 girls are nominated. You can nominate your friends or, if you are ambitious enough, you can nominate yourself. And tonight the votes commence. 2 guys and 2 girls with the highest votes are then crowned as the new captain and vice house-captain.

And there's another part to it. The ones who nominated must also campaign for their friend.

For me, it is a fairer process because:1. In this simple college world, the format was only revealed yesterday. Thus, captain wannabees would have imperfect knowledge and would not dare risk bribing for nominations because, simply put, they don't know how nominations would happen anyway.

2. In 1 day, there is slim possibility a nominee would get to play money politics to garner enough votes to win. And in any case, because it's decided by 'highest vote', not 'majority vote', there is uncertainty about the number of votes needed. Plus, everyone gets to vote not one, but 2 guys and 2 girls.What if your rivals are not that popular? Then the 'highest vote' will be relatively low. Similarly you'll need lots and lots if your opponents are Dr.Mahathirs. Maybe you can bribe everyone, but again the '1-day grace period' makes this almost impossible. Bribe-free nomination, bribe-free voting. Hey, maybe a 'United Malays' party can learn something from house elections *bleep*

Of course, i'm making a lot of assumptions, and this fair-er situation is possible in our carefree college world, where on-the-spot voting systems could be created, and if everyone votes, it doesn't pose a logistical nightmare (there are approximately 100 people in each house, compared to the millions in a certain 'United Malays' party). Votes belong to the people, and one way or another the people should decide, not a few elite delegates *wink*